Talk:My Love from the Star/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47 review

Lead and infobox The image in the infobox requires ALT text per the manual of style. If you are unfamiliar with ALT text, then I would recommend looking through good articles or featured articles, as they should have plenty of examples of this. References are usually not used in the lead for a television show article, as the same information should also be located and cited in the body of the article. References are typically only used to cite controversial information in a lead section. I would remove the citations here, and make sure that everything from the lead is cited and supported accordingly. The genres in the infobox will need to be cited somewhere in the body of the article. For this part (starring Jun Ji-hyun, Kim Soo-hyun, Park Hae-jin and Yoo In-na in lead), the "in lead" part is not necessary since it can be assumed that anyone starring in a show would "in lead". I would specify the year or decade for this part (in the modern era) as the current phrase could mean something very different for a reader years now or in the future.  Done: See [1]. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 04:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Synopsis This section requires citations  Done [2]. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 04:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Cast This section requires further citations for the character descriptions and a majority of the actors.  Done Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 06:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Episodes The article should have the list of the episodes and summaries for each. The episodes could also be spun-out into its own list if you believe it is long enough for that. References There are several bare URLs, which need to be correctly formatted.  Done Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 15:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Final comments *Apologies in advance, as I know that this has been waiting a rather long time for a review, but this is a quick fail. The lack of citations in the "Synopsis" section and the spotty citations in the "Cast" section, as well as the lack of an episode list and summary and the inclusion of bare URLs, show that this article will require substantial work before it could be promoted as a good article. If you would like to work on this article more, I would encourage you to do a peer review ′for this and contact any user on their talk page about helping out with the article. Apologies again, as this show does sound very interesting, but it needs more work. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Second review request

• Opening this up again for a second opinion due to concerns from the nominator and another editor. I will not be participating in this, so it is entirely up to whoever picks this up. I will not respond to pings or any other questions or remarks about my above review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: whoever picks this up can either give a full second review, or render an opinion as to whether this should be quickfailed per the GA criteria, though the former is most desirable. We are unsure as to whether an episode list is truly necessary for a GA, but I imagine the nominator is prepared to create one if necessary—it shouldn't take an inordinate amount of time—and as this nomination waited over nine months before it was initially picked up for review, giving the typical week to create one shouldn't be a problem. There has been a great deal of discussion on the article's talk page about this review and other issues with the article, which should help give context. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Will get to this either tomorrow or Friday, assuming something doesn't pop up. JOEBRO64 00:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok looking at the article I don't think it's necessarily GA quality yet but close. Most of Aoba's concerns were addressed by the nominator (I don't see any barelinks anymore). I do think we should have an episode list though, and there are some areas that could benefit from copyediting. Also disagree with the plot needing sources; it's assumed that the plot is sourced to the work itself and thus doesn't require sources. JOEBRO64 22:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you for clearing that up for me. I can admit when I am wrong so apologies for that. And I just wanted to ping both the new reviewer (@TheJoebro64:) and the nominator (@Siddiqsazzad001:) to remind them that this review is still open. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Regrettably, Siddiqsazzad001 retired from Wikipedia on January 31, which I hadn't known until I visited their talk page just now. Under the circumstances, TheJoebro64, I think the best thing to do would be to fail the nomination. They can always renominate should they return to editing here, once they've added the episode list, and perhaps you would be willing to review it at that time. Thanks for agreeing to take on the review; I'm sorry Siddiqsazzad001 didn't stick around to see it through. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • @BlueMoonset: Thank you for the update. I will leave the closing to TheJoebro64, unless you believe that I should do so since I was the first reviewer, and I am still listed as the primary reviewer at the top. Should the user's GAN for Kullfi Kumarr Bajewala should be taken down given their retirement? Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Aoba47, as you gave this over, and TheJoebro64 has taken it up, you should no longer do anything here, but leave it up to TheJoebro64 to decide what to do next. Thank you. I'll take care of the GAN they have made. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.